Dothraki, Literary device or genuine military might?

[Universal Sword Donor]

On 8/13/2016 at 0:41 AM, Abdallah said:

After rereading A Game of Thrones one important thing to note is that Dothraki bows outrange Westerosi bows. So they can run away from cavalry and pin down Infantry. For the Infantry they would move into a smaller condense group. The Dothraki lack heavy cavalry but if Dany can get heavy cav from elsewhere they can perform like the Pathian Horse Archer/ Cataphract combo like at Carrhae.

Tell that to Jon Connington:

"A third of Balaq's men used crossbows, another third the double-curved horn-and-sinew bows of the east. Better than these were the big yew longbows borne by the archers of Westerosi blood, and best of all were the great bows of goldenheart treasured by Black Balaq himself and his fifty Summer Islanders. Only a dragonbone bow could outrange one made of goldenheart. Whatever bow they carried, all of Balaq's men were sharp-eyed, seasoned veterans who had proved their worth in a hundred battles, raids, and skirmishes. They proved it again at Griffin's Roost."

I'd trust he would know the difference between a compound bow and a longbow. It seems he does.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

On 13 August 2016 at 2:24 AM, Dorian Martell said:

I would argue that because they only exist in books they are a literary device and not  genuine military might.  In story though they are extremely badass. Whole cities would rather buy them off then face them in battle. 

 

This is not necessarily good logic, armies are expensive to raise and maintain, so it may certainly be cheaper to bribe them than fight them, not to mention the destruction they could cause without actually winning a major battle.

A historical example of this might be Danegeld: tribute payed to Viking raiders by the Saxons. Contrary to what many believe the Vikings weren't really superior to the Saxons tactically, they were very similar fighters, the Vikings just had good mobility and the ability to raid, so it was usually much easier to pay them than fight them. The same is likely true of the Dothraki.

[Dorian Martell]

1 hour ago, Ser Arthur Hightower said:

This is not necessarily good logic, armies are expensive to raise and maintain, so it may certainly be cheaper to bribe them than fight them, not to mention the destruction they could cause without actually winning a major battle.

A historical example of this might be Danegeld: tribute payed to Viking raiders by the Saxons. Contrary to what many believe the Vikings weren't really superior to the Saxons tactically, they were very similar fighters, the Vikings just had good mobility and the ability to raid, so it was usually much easier to pay them than fight them. The same is likely true of the Dothraki.

Good point, still, there is a calculus, be it expensive or lethal, combatting the Dothraki is not a good option. Therefore Dothraki=Badass

[Trigger Warning]

They don't wear armour. 

 

And they don't wear armour. 

 

[Trigger Warning]

5 hours ago, Dorian Martell said:

Good point, still, there is a calculus, be it expensive or lethal, combatting the Dothraki is not a good option. Therefore Dothraki=Badass

That's probably got more to do with them being nomadic than them being particularly fierce, if the Westerosi meandered around Essos with tens of thousands of soldiers threatening to raid anywhere at will then they'd probably get bought off too. Like Hightower pointed out, the vikings weren't necessarily militarily superior to the kingdoms that paid them off, they extorted money like this all the way from Britain to the Baltic, the Vikings just happened to be the ones with the mobility and speed to threaten these places in force. 

[Abdallah]

10 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Tell that to Jon Connington:

"A third of Balaq's men used crossbows, another third the double-curved horn-and-sinew bows of the east. Better than these were the big yew longbows borne by the archers of Westerosi blood, and best of all were the great bows of goldenheart treasured by Black Balaq himself and his fifty Summer Islanders. Only a dragonbone bow could outrange one made of goldenheart. Whatever bow they carried, all of Balaq's men were sharp-eyed, seasoned veterans who had proved their worth in a hundred battles, raids, and skirmishes. They proved it again at Griffin's Roost."

I'd trust he would know the difference between a compound bow and a longbow. It seems he does.

I don't know man, Jorah Mormont said they outranged Westerosi Bows. JonCon viewed the Westerosi bows as better, there might be a different reason besides range that made him think that way. Composite bows are only good for horse archers.  the Longbow might have more power than the composite. 

[Walda]

On 13/08/2016 at 11:05 AM, WSmith84 said:

The problem is, we haven't yet seen the Dothraki go toe-to-toe with any decent army. If they did engage in a pitched battle with a Westerosi army they should, by all logic and reason, be torn to absolute shreds. It should be an effing slaughter. But George might have them emerge victorious, ignoring the Dothraki lack of armour, weapons, tactics, leadership etc. Maybe he's setting them up to fall, or maybe he wants them as a genuine threat. We just don't know yet.

We do have this account from Jorah, of the seige of Qohor, 400 years ago :

Quote

when dawn broke and Temmo and his bloodriders led their khalasar out of camp, they found three thousand Unsullied drawn up before the gates with the Black Goat standard flying over their heads. So small a force could easily have been flanked, but you know Dothraki. These were men on foot, and men on foot are fit only to be ridden down.
“The Dothraki charged. The Unsullied locked their shields, lowered their spears, and stood firm. Against twenty thousand screamers with bells in their hair, they stood firm.
“Eighteen times the Dothraki charged, and broke themselves on those shields and spears like waves on a rocky shore. Thrice Temmo sent his archers wheeling past and arrows fell like rain upon the Three Thousand, but the Unsullied merely lifted their shields above their heads until the squall had passed. In the end only six hundred of them remained … but more than twelve thousand Dothraki lay dead upon that field, including Khal Temmo, his bloodriders, his kos, and all his sons. On the morning of the fourth day, the new khal led the survivors past the city gates in a stately procession. One by one, each man cut off his braid and threw it down before the feet of the Three Thousand. (ASoS, Ch.08 Daenerys I)

Of course, Dany's khalasar have crossed the poison water, witnessed blood-magic rituals like the birth of the dragon, accepted a woman as khal, all kinds of things Dotharaki don't normally do. They have Grey Worm, Barristan, Tyrion, and maybe even Strong Belwas on their side, technically. Tyrion has shown himself to be capable of (sort-of) unifying the wildling clans of the vale of Arryn, to good military effect, as well as constructing siege engines and so on. Grey Worm probably has enough to do with keeping the unsullied and the overall military strategy together, and I don't think someone of his background could even comprehend the hot mess of indiscipline, testosterone and tradition that substitutes for soldierly values in the Dothraki culture. Still, this small khalasar can be taught new tricks, and if the Dragon Queen is able to unite every khalasar in the Dothraki sea by the power of Drogon, I'm sure he could find some good use for them.

Barristan doesn't seem to have much to do with the Dothraki, he seems more concerned with building a pretorian guard from scratch. Strong Belwas, if he lives, is antithetical to the Dothraki, and while he understands them and their weaknesses best of all, it is only because they compliment his. A egotistical individualistic pitfighter teaching military discipline to a hive-minded khalasar - I can't see it. There seems to be a Jorah-shaped hole in Dany's military council, between Tyrion and Rakharo. Jorah might be able to persuade Rakharo and Aggo and Jhogo to adopt some half-man tricks. Although I'm not sure how either of them are in a position to take a command over the Khaleesi's khalasar when they are both signed and sworn to the Second Sons under Ben Plumm, who knows more reasons than most to keep those two on a short leash.

But yes, it seems exactly as @Aenarion has said (nice post) - the Dothraki exist only to be shredded when the Empires are built, and they will shrink with the disputed lands, as the farms and roads expand. If they are part of a mighty war of conquest, most will be cannon fodder, and the few who become scouts, trackers, guerrillas, useful members of society, will be the ones prepared to leave their itinerant tribal culture behind and adopt their Queen's sedentary farm-land dependant culture. 

[Dorian Martell]

1 hour ago, Trigger Warning said:

That's probably got more to do with them being nomadic than them being particularly fierce, if the Westerosi meandered around Essos with tens of thousands of soldiers threatening to raid anywhere at will then they'd probably get bought off too. Like Hightower pointed out, the vikings weren't necessarily militarily superior to the kingdoms that paid them off, they extorted money like this all the way from Britain to the Baltic, the Vikings just happened to be the ones with the mobility and speed to threaten these places in force. 

That is the whole point. Jorah in the first book and Barristan in the fifth shows how excellent westerosi knights are in their armor and castle forged swords compared to an unarmored fighter, dothraki or mereenese pit fighter. but none of that matters. When a 40,000 strong Khalisar arrives near hte outskirts of pentos, the city gives the Khal a manse.  It is easier that way 

[Runaway Penguin]

19 hours ago, Ser Arthur Hightower said:

This is not necessarily good logic, armies are expensive to raise and maintain, so it may certainly be cheaper to bribe them than fight them, not to mention the destruction they could cause without actually winning a major battle.

A historical example of this might be Danegeld: tribute payed to Viking raiders by the Saxons. Contrary to what many believe the Vikings weren't really superior to the Saxons tactically, they were very similar fighters, the Vikings just had good mobility and the ability to raid, so it was usually much easier to pay them than fight them. The same is likely true of the Dothraki.

This also goes to the "All Dothraki are warriors". I call bollocks - all may serve in the khalasar, but if ALL dothraki ale in the Khalasar, then 2/3 of them are not worth much in fight. one of points for Vikings over Saxon lavies was also the fact that all Danes who went raiding were warriors - non-warriors traded, worked the fields and all that. In Saxon levies you had both warriors and non-warriors on one pile, so there was a huge disadvantage (that can be overcome only with strict drill - Swiss pike phalanx was an example and they relied in large part on psychologic impact of their unstoppable advance rather than on actual close comabt prowess - most enemies broke when the Swiss simply advanced and did not stop).

 

11 hours ago, Abdallah said:

I don't know man, Jorah Mormont said they outranged Westerosi Bows. JonCon viewed the Westerosi bows as better, there might be a different reason besides range that made him think that way. Composite bows are only good for horse archers.  the Longbow might have more power than the composite. 

Might be discrepancy of someone who lived withthem and is infected by them (and wants to look like an expert to his love) and a military professional  I mean you have tons of people on the internet expounding on the disadvantages of 5.56 NATO and advantages of 7.62x39, but armies all over the world tend to prefer the smaller of the universal cartridges (and it does not go away even after decades of combat experience)... 

2 hours ago, Dorian Martell said:

That is the whole point. Jorah in the first book and Barristan in the fifth shows how excellent westerosi knights are in their armor and castle forged swords compared to an unarmored fighter, dothraki or mereenese pit fighter. but none of that matters. When a 40,000 strong Khalisar arrives near hte outskirts of pentos, the city gives the Khal a manse.  It is easier that way 

Cheaper. The city would not be taken byu the Dothraki, but they would burn and pillage its surroundings - its economy basis. Since giving few trinkets keeps them from doing that, no need to mobilize and fight.

[Light a wight tonight]

On 8/12/2016 at 6:24 PM, Dorian Martell said:

I would argue that because they only exist in books they are a literary device and not  genuine military might.  In story though they are extremely badass. Whole cities would rather buy them off then face them in battle. 

We don't need to see them fight an army. We have the stories of them doing so, and the fact that most free cities just buy them off says they are pretty mean. They have numbers and fierceness.

I have to disagree. The Free Cities are all about commerce, and it's cheaper to pay a little tribute than to maintain a strong standing army.

Individually Dothraki are great fighters, but as a military force they lack organization. They beat Lamb People but were stymied by the discipline of the Unsullied, whom they outnumbered.

[Runaway Penguin]

Exactly. It is cheaper to pay Dothrakgeld than to pay a large army and get your villages burned - though the moment Dothraki would try to renege ont heir part of he deal, a city would likely look for a revenge - heck, if Dothreakis betrayed the deal, all cities may pitch in as while they may be trade competitors and all, some niceties need to be observed and if Dothraki betrayed one city, who can trust them anymore?

Though i guess it may also be again GRRMs all or nothing approach - free cities of the Earth usually remained free, because they were able to quickly raise decent military force with good equipment (see even poor Swiss cantons) and good drill. Bu then again that is disrupting the business... Maybe the sellsword comapnies (at least some of them) are in fact small "professional breeding grounds" for the cities (again, Swiss example)...

[WSmith84]

12 hours ago, Abdallah said:

I don't know man, Jorah Mormont said they outranged Westerosi Bows. JonCon viewed the Westerosi bows as better, there might be a different reason besides range that made him think that way. Composite bows are only good for horse archers.  the Longbow might have more power than the composite. 

Dothraki generally fire from horseback, Westerosi on foot. I don't know of any composite bow that can outrange an equivalent longbow. Simple physics really.

Perhaps in AGOT George didn't put much thought into how realistic it was for the Dothraki to be a serious military threat, but later realized he made them comically unrealistic.

[Abdallah]

24 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

Dothraki generally fire from horseback, Westerosi on foot. I don't know of any composite bow that can outrange an equivalent longbow. Simple physics really.

Perhaps in AGOT George didn't put much thought into how realistic it was for the Dothraki to be a serious military threat, but later realized he made them comically unrealistic.

Yeah the only way is if the Dotharki bows outrange Westerosi. Good horsearchers are as good as any foot archer. If they do they still have worth. 

[Runaway Penguin]

Good horse archers still are much bigger and unprotected target, while foot archers are as likely as not behind a wall of pavis. Foot archers also can achieve much higher density of arrows - thay can have tighter formation and more readily accessible arrows. More stable platform for shooting is also a bonus, no matter how well trained your mythical horse archer is - when dragoons wanted more precise fire, they dismounted and fired their carbines from the ground. 

 

I think Mr. Lindybeige covers them quite well

 

[WSmith84]

6 minutes ago, Abdallah said:

Yeah the only way is if the Dotharki bows outrange Westerosi. Good horsearchers are as good as any foot archer. If they do they still have worth. 

But that's just it; no horsearcher in history has outranged one on foot, not without a huge technological discrepancy. I see no reason to believe the Dothraki have technology that is better than Westerosi (and a lot of evidence to suggest the opposite). And considering that the Dothraki spend most of their time killing each other and slaughtering innocent Lamb Men I doubt they're using arrows designed to penetrate armour.

[Dorian Martell]

6 hours ago, Runaway Penguin said:

Cheaper. The city would not be taken byu the Dothraki, but they would burn and pillage its surroundings - its economy basis. Since giving few trinkets keeps them from doing that, no need to mobilize and fight.

Either way, they are too badass to fight

[Runaway Penguin]

Not necessarily "too badass to fight", might be just "too expensive to fight". As was often the case of North African or Caribbean pirate nests - as long as they stayed low level threat and can be bought if needed, they were more or less left alone to their antics, if they crossed the line, the powers that be sighed, paid money to nasty men with swords and drove home the message that this is not a proper behavior.

Once it came to fight, the pirates usually melted. So were they ignored before because they were "too badass to fight", or just because the cost/benefit equation was not too good? 

EDIT: That would mean that exterminating the piracy would mean either a long and costly occupation, or equally long and costly depopulation.

[Abdallah]

2 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

But that's just it; no horsearcher in history has outranged one on foot, not without a huge technological discrepancy. I see no reason to believe the Dothraki have technology that is better than Westerosi (and a lot of evidence to suggest the opposite). And considering that the Dothraki spend most of their time killing each other and slaughtering innocent Lamb Men I doubt they're using arrows designed to penetrate armour.

Horse archers have had alot of success. Thing is that if they attack one point and the lords order their archers to one side they could have a second group attack from another. Another thing is that the wood according to GRRM is important. I guess it's possible that Dothraki bows can outrange Westerosi bows if the wood is better. Also the composite bow can outrange the Crossbow, and faster rate of fighter. To be fair this is fantasy, so the idea that bows made of different wood can fire farther than others isn't that hard to believe. and as long as they can outrange the westerosi it could work. also the best horsearchers can hit aim as far as foot archers. the only armor they need is Lamallar with silk, that could help prevent longbow shots from penetrating. Akinji were useful and they were even able to kill chasing knights by hitting them in their visor. The real question is what heavy cavalry will Daenerys have? If she has enough they can be useful

[WSmith84]

16 hours ago, Abdallah said:

Horse archers have had alot of success. Thing is that if they attack one point and the lords order their archers to one side they could have a second group attack from another. Another thing is that the wood according to GRRM is important. I guess it's possible that Dothraki bows can outrange Westerosi bows if the wood is better. Also the composite bow can outrange the Crossbow, and faster rate of fighter. To be fair this is fantasy, so the idea that bows made of different wood can fire farther than others isn't that hard to believe. and as long as they can outrange the westerosi it could work. also the best horsearchers can hit aim as far as foot archers. the only armor they need is Lamallar with silk, that could help prevent longbow shots from penetrating. Akinji were useful and they were even able to kill chasing knights by hitting them in their visor. The real question is what heavy cavalry will Daenerys have? If she has enough they can be useful

The Dothraki wear no armour at all. And they are still going to be damaged by arrow fire far more than a Westerosi army would.

A composite bow may outrange a crossbow, but the Westerosi use plenty of composite and self bows as well. But a composite bow fired from horseback will never outrange one fired on foot and mounted archers usually did very poorly against archers on foot. As for wood types, the Westerosi are much more likely to have a greater range of materials, given their varied habitats and trading. The only evidence that we have that Dothraki bows outrange Westerosi ones is Jorah, but Jon Con gives us the opposite view. I tend to believe Jon Con here, for several reasons. One, he isn't trying to butter up someone (like Jorah is with Dany) when he states this; it's an internal thought. Two, it takes place in the most recent book, and AGOT suffers from a few cases of 'early book syndrome' in my opinion. Three, there's just more real-world evidence to suggest Jon Con is correct, not to mention the Westerosi engage in far mor actual warfare than the Dothraki do.

Any lord should have his men already in formation before facing a Dothraki horde. And Dothraki will have to ride within range of Westerosi archers to fire back. Plus, the Dothraki don't seem to engage in any tactics beyond charge. Not to mention they have really poor weaponry, no clear chain-of-command, no concept of formation or discipline and retreat seems to be an anathema to their entire culture.

[Abdallah]

1 hour ago, WSmith84 said:

The Dothraki wear no armour at all. And they are still going to be damaged by arrow fire far more than a Westerosi army would.

A composite bow may outrange a crossbow, but the Westerosi use plenty of composite and self bows as well. But a composite bow fired from horseback will never outrange one fired on foot and mounted archers usually did very poorly against archers on foot. As for wood types, the Westerosi are much more likely to have a greater range of materials, given their varied habitats and trading. The only evidence that we have that Dothraki bows outrange Westerosi ones is Jorah, but Jon Con gives us the opposite view. I tend to believe Jon Con here, for several reasons. One, he isn't trying to butter up someone (like Jorah is with Dany) when he states this; it's an internal thought. Two, it takes place in the most recent book, and AGOT suffers from a few cases of 'early book syndrome' in my opinion. Three, there's just more real-world evidence to suggest Jon Con is correct, not to mention the Westerosi engage in far mor actual warfare than the Dothraki do.

Any lord should have his men already in formation before facing a Dothraki horde. And Dothraki will have to ride within range of Westerosi archers to fire back. Plus, the Dothraki don't seem to engage in any tactics beyond charge. Not to mention they have really poor weaponry, no clear chain-of-command, no concept of formation or discipline and retreat seems to be an anathema to their entire culture.

Thing is Daenerys will have more than just Dothraki. If she upgrades them with some armor they can be really useful. Also at the very least they will be good skirmishers. I don't think Westerosi armies have fought the horse archer before and it could be really useful. Lets hope GRRM changes them alittle.